New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

New Ideas in Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/newideapsych

Schadenfreude deconstructed and reconstructed: A tripartite motivational T model ∗ Shensheng Wanga, , Scott O. Lilienfelda,b, Philippe Rochata a Department of Psychology, Emory University, 36 Eagle Row, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA b School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Schadenfreude is the distinctive pleasure people derive from others' misfortune. Research over the past three Schadenfreude decades points to the multifaceted nature of Schadenfreude rooted in humans’ concerns for social justice, self- Empathy evaluation, and social identity. Less is known, however, regarding how the differing facets of Schadenfreude are Dehumanization interrelated and take shape in response to these concerns. To address these questions, we review extant theories Inequity aversion in social psychology and draw upon evidence from developmental, personality, and clinical research literature to Psychopathy propose a novel, tripartite, taxonomy of Schadenfreude embedded in a motivational model. Our model posits Sadism that Schadenfreude comprises three separable but interrelated subforms (aggression, rivalry, and justice), which display different developmental trajectories and personality correlates. This model further posits that dehu- manization plays a central role in both eliciting Schadenfreude and integrating its various facets. In closing, we point to fruitful directions for future research motivated by this novel account of Schadenfreude.

The word “Schadenfreude,” which literally means “harm joy” in related. In doing so, we propose a novel, tripartite, conception of German, refers to the uncanny yet widely shared experience of pleasure Schadenfreude embedded in a motivational model that should have or delight in the misfortune of others (Heider, 1958; Schadenfreude, considerable heuristic value in future theory and research on this n.d.). Despite the word's German origin, Schadenfreude is pervasive complex and poorly understood emotion. across many cultures (Feather, 2012), even those, such as U.S. culture, that do not possess a formal term for it (Feather, 1989; Nachman, 1. Theories of Schadenfreude in social psychology 1986). Among philosophers, the debate over the moral nature of Our review of the extant theoretical approaches to Schadenfreude Schadenfreude has lasted at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. focuses on presenting the gist of each while pointing to its potential Some scholars have condemned Schadenfreude as a malicious emotion limitations. On this basis, we seek to organize this complex body of (Aristotle, 350 BEC/1941; Heider, 1958; Schopenhauer, 1892), whereas literature on Schadenfreude and related domains by proposing a novel others perceived it as morally neutral or even virtuous (Nietzsche, taxonomy of Schadenfreude. For interested readers, van Dijk and 1887/1908; Portmann, 2000). Still, others judged Schadenfreude based Ouwerkerk (2014) provide more detailed overviews for each of the on the severity of misfortune and the role of the Schadenfroh (i.e., an following theories. individual who experiences Schadenfreude; McNamee, 2003) in causing the misfortune (Ben-Ze'ev, 1992). 1.1. Deservingness theory of Schadenfreude Although this philosophical debate is far from settled, it alludes to the different facets of Schadenfreude, which vary not only in their About three decades ago, Feather conducted the first laboratory moral values but also in their potential causes. Social psychologists in study on Schadenfreude, examining people's affective responses when the past three decades have provided helpful insights into high-status individuals fall from grace. Corroborating the common be- Schadenfreude by highlighting and elucidating its separable facets. In lief that people may sometimes derive pleasure when societally suc- this article, we first briefly review this literature and then draw from cessful individuals are cut down to size, Feather (1989) found that both developmental and individual differences approaches to address participants tended to experience greater delight in the misfortune of a how the multiple facets of Schadenfreude take shape and how they are high achiever and perceived him/her to be more deserving of the

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Wang), [email protected] (S.O. Lilienfeld), [email protected] (P. Rochat). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.09.002 Received 30 July 2018; Received in revised form 6 September 2018; Accepted 12 September 2018 Available online 09 October 2018 0732-118X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11 misfortune than an average achiever, a tendency sometimes known as misfortune of the envied person, because it enhances the envious per- the “tall poppy” syndrome. son's self-evaluation (see van Dijk & Ouwerkerk, 2014). The other Research on the tall poppy syndrome led Feather to focus mainly on theory posits that others' misfortune is rewarding because envy is an perceived deservingness as a major, if not the only, variable to account unpleasant feeling that learning of other's misfortunes would knock the for Schadenfreude. Feather construed Schadenfreude as a justice-based envied person down a peg, rendering him or her less enviable. The emotion and proposed that individuals who believe that one's negative removal of envy would therefore constitute a relief, itself being a outcomes are deserved would experience delight when this person gets pleasant feeling (e.g., Rothbart, 1973). Although the two theories sug- his/her just deserts. Based on Heider’s (1958) principle of balance, gest somewhat different appraisals, they both point to a concern for Feather (1989) argued that whether an outcome is perceived as de- self-evaluation as a potential cause of Schadenfreude. served depends on the action that produces it. An outcome may be Despite evidence supporting the role of envy in experiencing perceived as deserved when the outcome and the action are consistent Schadenfreude (Smith et al., 1996; Takahashi et al., 2009), studies have or balanced (e.g., a positive outcome follows a positive action), but failed to replicate these findings (Feather & Sherman, 2002; Hareli & undeserved when the action is inconsistent or unbalanced. In addition, Weiner, 2002). van Dijk et al. (2006) suggested two crucial distinctions Feather maintained that liking/disliking, intergroup relations, and self- to account for these inconsistent results. First, researchers disagreed on evaluation also play key roles in evaluating the deservingness of a po- the definitions of envy and have distinguished between envy proper sitive or negative outcome related to either the self or others. In a series (also known as malicious envy) from benign envy, depending on whether of studies (Feather, 2008; Feather & Nairn, 2005; Feather & Sherman, envy entails hostility (see Smith & Kim, 2007). van Dijk et al. (2006) 2002), he and his colleagues systematically manipulated these variables found that in studies that supported the envy theory, researchers to examine their impact on perceived deservingness and participants' measured both aspects of envy (Smith & Kim, 2007; van de Ven, affective responses to the misfortune of others. The findings con- Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2009), whereas in studies that did not support sistently supported a link between perceived deservingness and Scha- the envy theory, researchers assessed only the benign aspect.1 Second, denfreude. studies differed in the protagonist's relevance to the participants: the Despite Feather's success in linking perceived deservingness to envy theory was corroborated only when participants and the prota- Schadenfreude, his theory is marked by a number of limitations. One of gonist were of the same gender, a condition rendering the protagonist's the major limitations concerns the direction of relations between per- misfortune more relevant to the participants. ceived deservingness and Schadenfreude. Instead of perceived deserv- To unravel these factors, van Dijk et al. (2006) measured both ingness causing one to derive pleasure from others' misfortune, the (benign) envy and hostile emotions (as a proxy of envy proper) to as- person may feel Schadenfreude first and later justify his/her feelings by certain their independent contributions to Schadenfreude; they also perceiving the misfortune as deserved, a possibility consistent with manipulated the achievement status of the protagonist and included cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959) that research both men and women to examine their potential effects on Schaden- has yet to exclude (Feather, 2012). Another limitation involves the freude. Participants were told about a protagonist of either high or assumption that the victim of a misfortune is responsible for his/her average status and rated their feelings of (benign) envy and hostile actions that led to the negative outcome. Nevertheless, Schadenfreude emotions; they then were informed of the protagonist's recent setback often occurs when this assumption is not met or assumed (e.g., Feather, and rated their feelings of Schadenfreude. Both hostility and (benign) 1989, Study 1). envy independently predicted Schadenfreude. Significant relations Despite these limitations, the perceived deservingness theory re- emerged only when the protagonist and the participant were of the mains effective in accounting for instances of Schadenfreude that follow same gender. More recent studies showed that Schadenfreude is either someone's deserved negative outcome within a context that implies unrelated to envy (Leach & Spears, 2008) or related but only when the personal causation. In recent years, the perceived deservingness theory malicious aspect of envy is measured (van de Ven et al., 2015). These has been extended to encompass theories that emphasize envy, ingroup findings again underline the specific conceptualization and oper- inferiority (Feather, 2012), and hypocrisy (Powell & Smith, 2013). ationalization of envy as critical in clarifying the relations between envy and Schadenfreude (Smith, Thielke, & Powell, 2014). Using a 1.2. Envy theory of Schadenfreude data-driven approach, Lange, Weidman, and Crusius (2018) proposed a novel theory of envy (i.e., Pain-driven Dual Envy Theory), which con- Feather's conception of Schadenfreude as a justice-based emotion is strues envy as encompassing three interrelated elements: benign envy, likely to tell only part of the story. There are numerous cases in which malicious envy, and the pain of envy. Based on this integrated theory of the type of misfortune defies analysis of its perceived deservingness, envy, Lange et al. (2018) demonstrated meta-analytically that envy is renders Schadenfreude less justifiable, and endows it with a malicious more strongly associated with Schadenfreude when it is conceptualized flavor. One such instances concerns Schadenfreude related toenvy. as malicious envy rather than benign envy or the pain of envy. The idea that Schadenfreude is linked to envy is not new. Plato expressed this idea over two thousand years ago: “Did we not say that pleasure in the misfortune of friends was caused by envy?” (Plato, 1.3. Intergroup theories of Schadenfreude 427–348 B.C./1925, p. 339, as cited in Smith et al., 1996, p. 158). Upholding this long-lasting belief, research shows that participants In addition to perceived deservingness and envy, research has express stronger envy toward the high-status protagonist and feel more linked Schadenfreude to intergroup interactions (Cikara, Botvinick, & pleased following his/her misfortune than that of the average-status Fiske, 2011; Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003). Unlike the counterpart, an effect especially pronounced among individuals with previous two theories, intergroup theories of Schadenfreude share an high levels of dispositional envy (Brigham, Kelso, Jackson, & Smith, interest in the intergroup context but vary in their accounts of Scha- 1997; Feather, 1989; Smith et al., 1996; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Goslinga, denfreude depending on intergroup contexts. Some accounts emphasize Nieweg, & Gallucci, 2006). rivalry and competition (Ouwerkerk & van Dijk, 2014) or ingroup in- Smith et al. (1996) proposed two theories to account for the rela- feriority (Leach & Spears, 2008), whereas others emphasize intergroup tions between envy and Schadenfreude. One posits that both envy and Schadenfreude derive from social comparison, whereby the former 1 According to Smith and Kim (2007), envy is “an unpleasant, often painful stems from upward social comparison and is linked to a sense of in- emotion characterized by feelings of inferiority, hostility, and resentment feriority, whereas the latter stems from downward social comparison caused by an awareness of a desired attribute enjoyed by another person or and is linked to a sense of superiority. An envious person enjoys the group of persons” (p. 46).

2 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11 aggression as potential mechanisms of intergroup Schadenfreude The concern for social justice may even trace its developmental (Cikara et al., 2011). roots to social evaluation demonstrated in few month-olds’ infants. Cikara et al. (2011) examined how aggressive attitudes between Three-month-old infants prefer puppets that help rather than hinder fans of two competing baseball teams predicted fans' affective responses another (Hamlin & Wynn, 2011; Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007). This while watching their favorite team play. Both self-report and neural early-emerging social discrimination is not only crucial for navigating responses showed that observing loss of the favorite team elicited the social world, but also may be one of the developmental precursors painful feelings with enhanced activation of the anterior cingulate to Schadenfreude. Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, and Mahajan (2011) ex- cortex and insula, both brain regions linked to physical and social pain. amined 5- and 8-month-old infants' reactions to puppets that were In contrast, witnessing the rival team's loss elicited pleasure and acti- presented as either prosocial (helping another) or antisocial (hindering vated the ventral striatum, a brain region involved in reward-proces- another). Eight-month-old infants preferred a puppet that harmed the sing. Importantly, the pleasure participants experienced following the antisocial puppet, whereas 5-month-old infants did not show any sig- rival team's loss correlated positively with their levels of aggression nificant preference. Although these studies were not designed todi- toward this team. The authors argued that intergroup interactions often rectly examine infants' affective responses to others' suffering, they provoke competition and aggression (Insko et al., 1987; Meier & Hinsz, provide compelling evidence that from at least 8 months, infants seem 2004), both enhancing the salience of self-identity for members within already to respond to another's misfortune by factoring in the social a social group. Both would contribute to ingroup loyalty and outgroup character of the victim (i.e., whether it was depicted as prosocial or rivalry as two co-dependent outcomes (Hamilton, Sherman, & Lickel, antisocial). When the antisocial puppet received its just deserts, 1998; Tajfel, 1982). harming became a more favorable and potentially more desirable out- come, hence a developmental precursor of Schadenfreude that would 1.4. Multiple facets of Schadenfreude echo an engrained concern for social justice.

The three general theories proposed by social psychologists high- 2.2. Developmental origins of Schadenfreude in social comparison light the multiple facets of Schadenfreude and its putative motives in human psychology. The first facet, underscored by perceived deserv- Consistent with the adult literature, developmental research de- ingness theory, stems from a concern for social justice. The second monstrates the primordial role of social comparison in Schadenfreude. facet, emphasized by envy theory, stems from a concern for self-eva- Steinbeis and Singer (2013) examined envy and Schadenfreude among luation. The third facet, stressed by the intergroup theories, stems from 7- to 13-year-old children in a reward-and-punishment task. Children a concern for social identity. What is largely missing in the social competed with an anonymous child to win a prize. After each trial, they psychology literature is a theoretical account of how the multiple facets indicated how happy or sad they felt on a visual analogue scale based of Schadenfreude interrelate to form this seemingly homogeneous on immediate feedback they received comparing their outcomes with emotion to which most or all of us can readily relate. To remedy this those of the competitor. Children felt more positive in a “self-won- omission, we draw upon insights from adjacent subdisciplines of psy- other-lost” compared with a “both won” outcome and felt more nega- chology, including developmental, clinical, and personality psychology tive in a “self-lost-other-won” compared with a “both lost” outcome. to propose a novel, tripartite, taxonomy of Schadenfreude embedded in The researchers measured Schadenfreude and envy by computing the a motivational model. difference between each pair of emotional ratings, finding thatenvy and Schadenfreude emerged by 7 years and decreased with age. Fur- 2. Developmental approach to Schadenfreude thermore, individual differences in both emotions predicted children's decisions in allocation of resources. Children with higher levels of envy Research on infants' and children's responses to the misfortune of and/or Schadenfreude were more likely to minimize others' outcomes others is scant and scattered, varying in participants' ages, the methods as opposed to favoring equal allocations (see Fehr, Bernhard, & used to elicit and measure Schadenfreude, and the theoretical im- Rockenbach, 2008). These findings suggest that envy and Schaden- plications drawn from the findings. These limitations pose a challenge freude may share common developmental roots with a sense of fairness. when trying to gather evidence on the developmental origins of In another study, Shamay-Tsoory, Ahronberg-Kirschenbaum, and Schadenfreude. Given this challenge, we examine the development of Bauminger-Zviely (2014) showed that 24-month-old infants who pre- Schadenfreude in a broader context by focusing on both the early signs viously expressed jealousy toward another infant exhibited behavior of Schadenfreude and potentially related affective phenomena, in- indicative of Schadenfreude when the rival infant lost his/her favorable cluding social evaluation, inequity aversion, and ingroup preferences. position. As will become evident, these allied phenomena, although not techni- Whereas most studies linking Schadenfreude to social comparison cally part of Schadenfreude per se, have the potential to enrich and have focused on the role of previous disadvantage of the individual in deepen our understanding of this complex emotion from the perspective eliciting Schadenfreude (e.g., Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2014; Smith et al., of development. 1996), the findings of Steinbeis and Singer (2013) suggest that an ad- vantageous status may spontaneously elicit Schadenfreude without 2.1. Developmental origins of Schadenfreude in social justice being preceded by an initial disadvantage. Although this alternative mechanism of Schadenfreude has not been further examined in the Consistent with the adult literature, which links Schadenfreude to a developmental and adult literature, research on the development of concern for social justice, developmental research reveals that fairness in children provides intriguing evidence pointing to distinct Schadenfreude may trace its roots partly to norm-based moral evalua- developmental origins of Schadenfreude related to two forms of in- tion in children evident already in the preschool years (Nobes, equity aversion manifested in child development. Panagiotaki, & Pawson, 2009). For example, Schulz, Rudolph, Tscharaktschiew, and Rudolph (2013) presented 100 4- to 8-year-old 2.3. Two forms of inequity aversion: two subforms of Schadenfreude? children with stories about a peer who attempts to reach a goal but suffers a subsequent misfortune. They then asked these children about A central concern of human moral cognition involves fairness. At their feelings toward the peer and probed their willingness to help. the core of fairness lies an aversion to inequity in allocating resources. Regardless of their age, children felt more pleased and were less willing Adult humans from diverse cultural backgrounds demonstrate a pro- to help when the misfortune (e.g., a fall into a muddy puddle) followed pensity to engage in costly punishment (i.e., reducing other's payoffs at a morally negative goal (e.g., to hurt other children or break their toys). personal cost) of noncooperative norm violators during allocation of

3 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11 resources. In an ultimatum game, for example, people tend to sacrifice 2.4. Developmental origins of Schadenfreude in intergroup aggression their own resources to cause a greater loss to proposers who allocate resources unfairly (Henrich et al., 2006). Costly punishment is con- Consistent with the adult literature suggesting that a concern for sidered as a key mechanism in sustaining large-scale cooperation social identity contributes to intergroup Schadenfreude, infancy re- among nonkin. Referred sometime as “altruistic punishment” (Fehr & search identifies its early roots in social preferences. Hamlin, Mahajan, Gächter, 2002, p. 137), or “moralistic aggression” (Trivers, 1971, p. Liberman, and Wynn (2013) presented 9- to 14-month-old infants with 49), costly punishment would be a core feature of human altruism. puppet shows that featured two rabbit puppets; one shared similar food Despite the altruistic motive of maintaining group cooperation as its preferences with the infants whereas the other did not. The puppet name implies, Jensen (2012) argued that given the one-shot, anon- shows continued, showing the rabbit puppet playing with a ball and ymous situations in which costly punishment occurs, it may be driven accidentally dropping it when two dog puppets either helped the rabbit instead by an intent to cause harm and suffering in others. Jensen ar- pick up the ball (the helper) or stole it and ran away (the harmer). gued, “Spitefulness and other negative other-regarding concerns such as Following the shows, researchers showed the helper and harmer side by Schadenfreude might provide immediate benefits in terms of motiva- side in front of the infant, testing which one the infant reached for first tional rewards. The suffering and misfortunes are the goals” (p. 311). as a proxy of social preferences. Contrary to the simple heuristic that Jensen’s (2012) idea not only echoes the perceived deservingness harmers are always evaluated negatively, infants at least by 9 months theory, but also finds empirical support from a number of studies on preferred individuals who harm dissimilar others to those who help fairness (de Quervain et al., 2004; Fehr & Gächter, 2002; Pillutla & them, an effect more pronounced in older infants (14 months). This Murnighan, 1996; Singer et al., 2006). One study (Singer et al., 2006) finding suggests that infants' social evaluation is governed byarudi- showed that among male but not female participants, witnessing non- mentary sense of social identity rooted in similarity/dissimilarity jud- cooperators in the Prisoner's Dilemma game receiving a painful electric gements. Perceiving others as dissimilar motivates negative evaluation shock was followed by reduced activation in the fronto-insular cortex, a (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971), provokes aggression (Sherif, brain area associated with empathy for pain, but enhanced activation in Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1954/1961), and may render dissimilar the left ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens and in the left orbito- others more deserving of punishment, their suffering somehow enjoy- frontal cortex, brain areas associated with reward-processing. These able (Cikara et al., 2011; Hamlin et al., 2013). Therefore, infants' po- findings suggest that, at least for males, seeing an unfair partner's sitive evaluation of harming of dissimilar others may be a harbinger of physical pain reduces pain-related empathic responses but enhances intergroup Schadenfreude that derives from a concern for social iden- satisfaction. Nevertheless, the reasons for this sex difference, if replic- tity. Note however that this interpretation awaits further examination able, require further investigation. of infants’ affective responses accompanying their preferential reaching Costly punishment has early developmental roots. From 5 years of behavior. age children express inequity aversion to disadvantageous allocations (Fehr et al., 2008; Robbins & Rochat, 2011), and across highly con- 3. A novel taxonomy of Schadenfreude: three subforms trasted cultures, 5-year-olds start to show a strong sense of equity in sharing resources (Rochat et al., 2009). Accumulating evidence sug- The developmental findings on Schadenfreude and allied fields gests that a genuine sense of fairness entails not merely rejecting dis- suggest an intriguing hypothesis worthy of examination, namely that advantageous inequity (as in the case of costly punishment of unfair there are three subforms of Schadenfreude—aggression, rivalry, and players, see Robbins & Rochat, 2011), but also overcoming an initial justice—each underpinned by a distinct concern that has deep devel- preference for diminishing others' payoffs to leverage one's own ad- opmental roots, unfolding in infant and child development. Aggression vantage (Blake et al., 2015; Brosnan & de Waal, 2014; Sheskin, Bloom, Schadenfreude derives from an earlier sense of social identity during & Wynn, 2014). infancy. Rivalry Schadenfreude derives from a concern for social Sheskin et al. (2014) asked 5- to 10-year-old children to share to- comparison, an initial preference for advantageous inequity that chil- kens between themselves and an anonymous peer in 10 trials, among dren must overcome to develop a genuine sense of fairness. Finally, which 4 assessed disadvantageous inequity (e.g., 2, 2 vs. 2,3), 4 ad- justice Schadenfreude derives from a concern for social justice defined vantageous inequity (e.g., 2,1 vs. 2,2), and the last two served as a by norms of fairness that eventually develops in later childhood. control condition (1,1 vs. 2, 2). The payoffs of the participants differed, From a different vein, the three subforms of Schadenfreude differin corresponding to a costly and a noncostly condition in both the dis- the Schadenfroh's focus in the appraisal of others' misfortune. In rivalry advantageous and advantageous inequity trials. In order to reject a Schadenfreude, the Schadenfroh focuses primarily on his/her own disadvantageous allocation, for example, the participants in a costly status in social comparison rather than the affective states of the suf- condition would need to forfeit one token (e.g., 1, 1 vs. 2, 3), whereas in ferers. In justice Schadenfreude, by contrast, the Schadenfroh's primary a noncostly condition, they could reject without sacrificing their payoffs goal is to ensure, actively or passively, that individuals who violate (e.g., 2, 2 vs. 2, 3). The results revealed distinct developmental trajec- social justice receive punishment, and to know that the goal is achieved, tories of disadvantageous and advantageous inequity aversion. Whereas the Schadenfroh needs to be aware of the affective states of the sufferers disadvantageous inequity aversion was evident by 5 and remained (Jensen, 2012). Therefore, although justice Schadenfreude may occur stable through 10, advantageous inequity aversion did not emerge until in situations that involve social comparison, it is other-oriented, dis- 7 years of age. Furthermore, 5- to 6-year-old children not only costly tinguishing itself from rivalry Schadenfreude, which focuses on the self. rejected disadvantageous allocations but also accepted at a cost offers Compared with the other two subforms, aggression Schadenfreude, that reduced others’ payoffs (e.g., choosing 2, 1 over 3, 3). which stems from a sense of social identity, may require minimal in- Collectively, research on the two forms of inequity aversion raises terpretation beyond drawing a line between “us” and “them,” whereby the intriguing possibility of two subforms of Schadenfreude, one de- the misfortune of outgroup members can be rewarding (Hamlin et al., riving from disadvantageous inequity aversion, driven by a moral 2013). In this respect, both aggression and rivalry Schadenfreude, re- concern for justice and fairness, and motivating costly punishment of main primarily self-oriented by putting minimal emphasis on the af- unjust individuals (Robbins & Rochat, 2011; Singer et al., 2006), the fective states of the sufferers compared with justice Schadenfreude. other deriving from a preference for advantageous inequity, driven by In sum, extant developmental evidence provides empirical ground social comparison concerns, and motivating spiteful behavior (Sheskin for a novel tripartite taxonomy of Schadenfreude. According to this et al., 2014; Steinbeis & Singer, 2013). Following convention in the taxonomy, aggression Schadenfreude, rivalry Schadenfreude, and jus- literature, we call the first subform justice Schadenfreude, and the tice Schadenfreude are three related but separable subforms of second rivalry Schadenfreude. Schadenfreude associated with distinct causes and developmental

4 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11 origins. To examine the provisional utility of this novel taxonomy in videorecorded to measure their smile intensity. Finally, they self-re- describing the dimensions along which individuals differ in their ten- ported their empathy and Schadenfreude toward the protagonist and dencies to experience Schadenfreude, we review both the clinical and completed questionnaires assessing their dark triad personality traits. personality psychology literature, focusing on which abnormal and The results showed that the Dark Triad composite scores were posi- normal personality traits might differentiate the three subforms of tively correlated with self-reported Schadenfreude, whereas results Schadenfreude. concerning smile intensity were mixed. In addition, individuals with higher dark triad traits, in particular psychopathic personality traits, 4. Individual differences approach to Schadenfreude were especially prone to actively search for videos that portrayed other individuals being hurt in daily life. Whereas most people are concerned with other individuals' distress James et al. (2014) linked the dark triad personalities to individual and are averse to hurting others (Cushman, Gray, Gaffey, & Mendes, differences in Schadenfreude and sensational interests, defined interms 2012), for a minority of individuals, cruelty, “the deliberate infliction of of an enthusiasm for violent topics such as weapons, crime, and mili- physical and psychological pain on a living creature” (Nell, 2006, p. tary. Participants completed questionnaires on sensational interests and 211), appears to afford gratification. To explain these profound differ- the dark triad traits as part of an online survey. They also rated their ences among individuals in their reactions toward others’ suffering, we emotional reactions following three vignettes depicting scenarios in draw insights from research on individual differences in Schadenfreude. which a person experienced a misfortune. These scenarios were (a) a Compared with a majority of research on Schadenfreude focusing on bad driver receiving a ticket for speeding, (b) an arrogant soccer player situational variables, only a small number of studies take individual from the opponent team suffering an injury as a result of a fancy move, differences approaches to examining Schadenfreude. Here, we focus on and (c) a co-worker receiving a negative performance review. The re- four major sets of variables that clinical and personality research has sults showed that the dark triad composite scores were positively cor- associated with individual differences in Schadenfreude: personality related with the degree of sensational interests and Schadenfreude. In disorders, general personality traits, self-esteem, and just world belief, particular, the scores on the psychopathy subscale were positively although these constructs are conceptually and empirically overlapping correlated with Schadenfreude for all the three scenarios, whereas for (Amirazodi & Amirazodi, 2011; Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Potter, & the scores on the narcissism subscale, the association was found only for Gosling, 2001). the third scenario, which involved downward social comparison. The association between the scores on the Machiavellianism subscale and 4.1. Psychopathy and Schadenfreude Schadenfreude was found only in the second and the third scenarios, which involved intergroup competitions. In sum, the findings suggest A large body of clinical literature has linked psychopathy to deficits that individuals with higher levels of the dark triad personalities are in affective empathy (Blair, 2005; Cheng, Hung, & Decety, 2012; more likely to experience Schadenfreude, although psychopathy, Ma- Decety, Chen, Harenski, & Kiehl, 2013). Psychopaths, characterized by chiavellianism, and narcissism may differentially predict different callousness and deficits in affective empathy, tend not to be concerned subforms of Schadenfreude. with inflicting pain in others. To the contrary, some psychopaths may Research has shown that everyday sadism shares callousness with even capitalize on their intact and perhaps even higher levels of cog- the Dark Triad traits and uniquely predicts antisocial behaviors above nitive empathy to derive pleasure from others’ distress and pain. and beyond these traits (Buckels et al., 2013; Chabrol, van Leeuwen, Heilbrun (1982) found that compared with low-IQ psychopaths, Rodgers, & Séjourné, 2009; Reidy, Zeichner, & Seibert, 2011). Com- highly intelligent psychopaths demonstrated higher levels of cognitive pared with nonsadists, sadists tend to increasingly engage in aggressive empathy and impulse control; he suggested that high-IQ psychopaths behavior, such as killing insects or harming innocent individuals, de- may deliberately inflict pain in victims for pleasure, whereby their high riving pleasure from such behavior (Buckels et al., 2013). Sadism, along levels of cognitive empathy enhanced arousal and rewards by boosting with the Dark Triad, form the newly proposed “Dark Tetrad” of per- their vicarious awareness of their victims’ suffering. Indeed, self-re- sonality. Buckels, Trapnell, and Paulhus (2014) showed that everyday ported psychopathy tends to be positively associated with self-reported sadism was positively correlated with online “trolling” in terms of both sadistic tendencies (Buckels, Jones, & Paulhus, 2013). commenting frequency and self-reported enjoyment of trolling, The uncoupling of cognitive and affective empathy among psycho- whereby the statistical effect of everyday sadism on trolling behavior paths may contribute to their aggressive behavior as well as their dis- was mediated by self-reported enjoyment of trolling. Similarly, position to experience Schadenfreude (Cheng et al., 2012; Decety et al., Greitemeyer (2015) showed that everyday sadism predicts the amount 2013). These findings may, in turn, help to explain the poorly under- of violent video game play when controlling for trait aggression, the Big stood link between psychopathy and sadism (Buckels et al., 2013). Five traits of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious- ness, and openness, and the Dark Triad traits. These findings suggest 4.2. The Dark Tetrad of personality traits and Schadenfreude that Schadenfreude, which conceptually shares a component of per- verse pleasure with everyday sadism, may overlap with these propen- In contrast to a focus on clinical conditions (e.g., psychopathy), a sities. Finally, Schumpe and Lafrenière (2016) showed that sadistic focus on subclinical populations allows us to capitalize on individual personality traits were positively correlated with Schadenfreude, differences in certain personality traits to examine their implications for whereby individuals with higher levels of sadistic personality traits felt Schadenfreude. more pleased when the misfortune was severe. Research (James, Kavanagh, Jonason, Chonody, & Scrutton, 2014; Porter, Bhanwer, Woodworth, & Black, 2014) has shown that individual 4.3. Self-esteem and Schadenfreude differences in Schadenfreude may relate to the “dark triad” of person- ality, namely, narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, three Feather (1989) showed that individuals with low self-esteem are overlapping yet distinct socially aversive personality traits (Furnham, more inclined to experience Schadenfreude than those with high self- Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; but see Watts, esteem. Van Dijk, van Koningsbruggen, Ouwerkerk, and Wesseling Waldman, Smith, Poore, & Lilienfeld, 2017). In a study by Porter et al. (2011) replicated these findings, showing that the relation between self- (2014), participants were randomly assigned to one of three experi- esteem and Schadenfreude was mediated by perceived self-threat. They mental conditions intended to elicit either empathy, Schadenfreude, or also found that participants reported reduced Schadenfreude following neutral emotions; in each condition, the participants read about a experimental manipulations that promoted their self-affirmation views protagonist's misfortune while their facial expressions were and reduced self-threat. The findings were consistent with earlier

5 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11 findings revealing that the provision of negative feedback on partici- (Greenier, 2017; James et al., 2014), the scenarios used to elicit Scha- pants' cognitive abilities increases Schadenfreude (van Dijk, denfreude vary in fundamental ways that entail multiple subforms of Ouwerkerk, Wesseling, & van Koningsbruggen, 2011). Taken together, Schadenfreude; however, the researchers averaged the scores across these findings suggest that individuals with low self-esteem tendto scenarios without assessing possible subdimensions within Schaden- experience Schadenfreude toward high achievers, ostensibly because freude, thereby potentially diluting statistically unique correlates of high achievers' misfortune provides Schadenfrohs who are low in self- each subdimension. esteem with an opportunity to enhance their self-evaluation via downward social comparison (Smith, Powell, Combs, & Schurtz, 2009). 5. Schadenfreude: a motivational model van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Smith, and Cikara (2015) reviewed findings from their previous studies and showed that both chronic and acute threats So far, we have reviewed evidence from social, developmental, and to self-worth elicit Schadenfreude and that this effect occurs on both individual differences psychology on Schadenfreude. This growing interpersonal and intergroup levels. Also linking low self-esteem to body of literature highlights self-evaluation, social identity, and justice Schadenfreude is the finding that vulnerable narcissism, which is as three concerns that motivate Schadenfreude in diverse situations. marked by low self-esteem, but not grandiose narcissism, which is Developmental research further reveals their early precursors in over- marked by high self-esteem (Miller & Campbell, 2008), correlates po- lapping but distinct domains, entailing social evaluation, inequity sitively with dispositional envy and dispositional Schadenfreude aversion, and social preferences/group affiliation. Our review has thus (Krizan & Johar, 2012). Given that envy is frequently regarded as a far focused mainly on the multifaceted nature of Schadenfreude, cardinal characteristic of narcissistic personality traits (American showing how the multiple facets of Schadenfreude differ. In the fol- Psychiatric Association, 2013; Kernberg, 1975), the findings of Krizan lowing section, we propose a motivational model of Schadenfreude to and Johar (2012) broadly support the envy theory of Schadenfreude. demonstrate how the multiple facets of Schadenfreude may be related. Finally, research shows that individuals with moderate levels of de- To demonstrate how a motivational model of Schadenfreude can pression are more prone to experience Schadenfreude than those with help integrate its multiple facets, we first step back from the literature low levels of depression (Chambliss et al., 2012; Pietraszkiewicz & on Schadenfreude to briefly survey theories of emotion relevant tothis Chambliss, 2015). These findings suggest that although individuals complex affective phenomenon. In particular, we draw upon the pio- with depressive disorders manifest marked reduction in interest and neering work of Frijda’s (1986) to provide a conceptual analysis of the pleasure in most everyday activities (American Psychiatric Association, relations among empathy, Schadenfreude, and dehumanization. Based 2013), they may seek out others’ misfortune for self-enhancement given on this analysis, we next propose a motivational model of Schaden- their low self-esteem. freude. Finally, we provide promising, albeit preliminary and indirect, In contrast, James et al. (2014) failed to find a positive correlation evidence for this model. between participants’ levels of self-esteem and their Schadenfreude. By proposing a motivational model of Schadenfreude, we argue that This discrepancy might rest primarily on the differences in the scenarios (a) the concerns of self-evaluation, social identity, and justice push used to elicit Schadenfreude. The vignettes in Feather (1989) and van individuals toward (approach motives) Schadenfreude, whereas mind Dijk et al. (2011a,b) described a high-achieving student suffering from a perception, a subcomponent of empathy (Zaki, 2014), pulls individuals misfortune, a scenario involving social comparison that typically elicits away from (avoidance motives) Schadenfreude; (b) Schadenfreude oc- envy and rivalry Schadenfreude. In contrast, James et al. (2014) used a curs when the perceiver, motivated by a number of situational and set of scenarios that varied substantially in the motives for eliciting dispositional variables, dehumanizes the victim, whereby the dehu- Schadenfreude, mixing perceived deservingness and envy within and manization disturbs the perceiver's mind perception, objectifying the across the scenarios, then computing a composite score of Schaden- victim and turning the misfortune into a social reward. We argue that freude. This calculation might have potentially obscured the hetero- this motivational model of Schadenfreude would help integrate its geneity of elicited Schadenfreude. multiple facets and offer a heuristic framework for embedding Scha- denfreude research within the context of emotion theories. 4.4. Just world belief and Schadenfreude 5.1. Motivational component of Schadenfreude One individual difference variable that captures Schadenfreude as- sociated with a justice concern is belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980). Emotion has long been considered being at the heart of human Individuals who uphold a belief in a just world believe that people get subjective experience (James, 1884), but it remains one of the most what they deserve. James et al. (2014) found that a 5-item measure of controversial topics in psychological research (e.g., Barrett, Mesquita, just world belief was positively correlated with Schadenfreude. Ochsner, & Gross, 2007). Different researchers tend to conceptualize Pietraszkiewicz (2013) examined people's Schadenfreude in a situation emotion differently (e.g., dimensionally vs. categorically), often leading in which their just world belief was threatened. The results showed that to debates regarding the most accurate definition of emotion. Despite threatened just world beliefs led to increasing time spent on reading these differences, most theorists agree that emotion entails multiple stories eliciting Schadenfreude. Greenier (2017) corroborated these components, including antecedent events, subjective experience, phy- findings by showing a positive correlation between Schadenfreude and siological and behavioral changes, and action tendencies (Frijda, 1986; just world belief measured by the Global Belief in a Just World Scale Izard, 2007; Mauss & Robinson, 2009; Russell, 2003; Scherer, 2009). (Lipkus, 1991). Against the backdrop of this consensual componential view of emotion, In sum, although research on individual differences in it is surprising that research on Schadenfreude has focused pre- Schadenfreude is preliminary, it suggests that individuals who are dominantly on identifying the causal antecedents of Schadenfreude prone to Schadenfreude are marked by lower empathy and agreeable- (e.g., envy, perceived deservingness, and intergroup conflicts) while ness, and higher levels of Dark Tetrad personality traits, linking largely neglecting to examine its other components and how they are Schadenfreude to “emotional coldness” and “self-centeredness” interrelated to elicit Schadenfreude. (Greenier, 2017), as well as meanness (see Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, Evidence from both adult and developmental research points to the 2009). Nevertheless, the relations between Schadenfreude and self-es- links between Schadenfreude and humans' engrained concerns for self- teem, dispositional envy, and just world belief are either mixed or less evaluation, social identity, and justice. These links dovetail nicely with robust. We argue that the lack of support for the role of perceived de- the theorizing of Frijda (1986), who brought individual goals, moti- servingness, envy, and self-evaluation from the individual differences vations, and concerns into the conceptualization and investigation of approach may be due to a methodological limitation. In some studies emotion. According to Frijda, the appraisal of the relevance of

6 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11 antecedent events to an individual's goals, motivations, and concerns Therefore, the implications and consequences of dehumanization ex- gives rise to emotions. Emotions are construed as states of action tend far beyond humans to encompass humans’ interactions with non- readiness in that they change individuals' tendencies to (a) approach or human animals and inanimate objects, such as social robots (Wang, avoid certain stimuli or situations, (b) become prepared for action, and Lilienfeld, & Rochat, 2015). (c) stop an action, shift attention, or lose interest. Broadly consistent So how would the implications of the aforementioned motivational with the writings of Frijda, we next propose a motivational model of account of empathy for understanding psychopathy inform the relation Schadenfreude by drawing upon insights from two related areas of re- among Schadenfreude, empathy, and dehumanization? One possibility search and theory—dehumanization and empathy. is that when people experience Schadenfreude, they undergo a state (temporary) process similar to that experienced by individuals with 5.2. Relations among empathy, Schadenfreude, and dehumanization: a high levels of psychopathic personality traits: motivated by certain si- conceptual analysis tuational and perhaps to a lesser extent dispositional variables, the perceiver tends to dehumanize the victim, temporarily losing the mo- There are perhaps as many definitions of empathy as there are re- tivation to detect the victim's mind, much like a psychopath. searchers studying it (Wispe, 1986). Although researchers have debated Building upon this analysis, we propose a motivational account of which psychological phenomena constitute empathy (Bernhardt & Schadenfreude, which highlights both forces that push individuals to- Singer, 2012; Blair, 2005; Preston & de Waal, 2002), many have em- ward (approach motives) and forces that pull individuals away from braced a conceptual framework that construes empathy as comprising (avoidance motives) experiencing Schadenfreude. The approach motives, distinct affective and cognitive components (Decety & Cowell, 2014; comprising concerns identified in the social and developmental litera- Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Reniers, Corcoran, Drake, Shryane, & Vollm, ture, motivate Schadenfreude by providing immediate social rewards to 2011; Shamay-Tsoory, Aharon-Peretz, & Perry, 2009). the Schadenfroh. One of the avoidance motives on which we focus in In addition to affective and cognitive empathy, Zaki (2014) high- this review, mind perception, puts the brakes on the individual who lighted mind perception, as a third subcomponent, which he viewed as tends to experience Schadenfreude. It does so by drawing the in- a precursor to the other two subcomponents of empathy. Mind per- dividual's attention to the mental states of the victim, triggering auto- ception refers to perceiver's detection of others as possessing a mind matic empathic responses to counteract the tendency toward (Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007); without mind perception, it would be Schadenfreude. Schadenfreude occurs when mind perception is dis- difficult, as Zaki (2014) argued, for the perceiver to share others' ex- turbed by a tendency to dehumanize the victim, denying the victim's perience or to mentalize about their mental states. ability to experience emotion and setting the stage for an “all gas, no Recall that individuals with psychopathic personality traits are brakes” when the Schadenfroh comes to derive pleasure from the vic- characterized by reduced affective empathy but intact or perhaps su- tim's misfortune. Notably, the dehumanization tendency itself is influ- perior cognitive empathy, an uncoupling that may contribute to their enced by a number of situational and dispositional variables, many of aggressive behavior as well as their disposition to experience which overlap with those shown to elicit Schadenfreude. Schadenfreude (Cheng et al., 2012; Decety et al., 2013; Heilbrun, We contend that although Schadenfreude is motivated by diverse 1982). According to Zaki's motivational account of empathy, psycho- concerns, its multiple facets, despite their differences, are all under- paths' reduced affective empathy reflects not an inability but rather a pinned by the shared process of dehumanization, which may lie at the lack of motivation to share affective experience with others. Corrobor- core of this emotion. In other words, when Schadenfreude occurs, re- ating this hypothesis, Decety et al. (2013) showed that, compared with gardless of the types of concerns a misfortune involves, the misfortune individuals with low levels of psychopathic personality traits, inmates is invariably perceived as a social reward and the victim is dehuma- with high levels of psychopathic personality traits exhibited typical and nized, a process that reduces its perceived sentience and opens up the even stronger affective empathy while imagining themselves in pain, possibility for some derived gratification. but reduced affective empathy while imagining someone else in pain. By and large, our motivational model of Schadenfreude is consistent Meffert, Gazzola, den Boer, Bartels, and Keysers (2013) demonstrated with Frijda's theory of emotion in that Schadenfreude can be viewed as that inmates with psychopathic personality traits experienced affective arising from the Schadenfroh's appraisal of antecedent events (e.g., si- empathy comparable to the levels of healthy comparison participants tuations involving others' misfortune) in relation to his/her concerns for when instructed to empathize with the person in pain. Similar effects of self-evaluation (rivalry Schadenfreude), social justice (justice instructions were found in individuals with high levels of narcissistic Schadenfreude), and social identification (aggression Schadenfreude). personality traits (Hepper, Hart, & Sedikides, 2014). Because psycho- Such appraisals would produce changes in the Schadenfroh's action paths, according to the motivational account of empathy, possess intact readiness, in turn promoting goal-directed behavior. We posit that each abilities for both experience sharing (affective empathy) and menta- subform of Schadenfreude is associated with a distinct type of action lizing (cognitive empathy), their deficits in empathy might be best readiness: aggression Schadenfreude is linked to a behavioral tendency characterized by a motivational deficit in mind perception, a defining to enhance ingroup affiliation, which may sometimes involve ostracism characteristic of dehumanization (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). and aggression against individuals judged as outgroup members (e.g., Dehumanization is the process by which a person or social group is intergroup aggression, see Cikara et al., 2011); justice Schadenfreude is perceived as lacking attributes that define what it means to be human linked to a behavioral tendency to punish others out of spitefulness (i.e., humanness). In both subtle and blatant forms, dehumanization can (e.g., punitive motives, see Jensen, 2012), and rivalry Schadenfreude is have dire consequences in terms of how people perceive, evaluate, and linked to a behavioral tendency to exploit others whenever possible treat each other (Leyens et al., 2003). When people are dehumanized, (e.g., 5–6 years old children's preference for advantageous inequity they are at greater risk of being perceived as less worthy of moral offers, see Sheskin et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whe- consideration, therefore more vulnerable to stereotyping and dis- ther (a) the types of action readiness we have proposed are species- crimination in subtle forms of dehumanization, and violence, torture, general as Frijda would argue and (b) appraisal necessarily precedes and war atrocities in blatant forms of dehumanization (Opotow, 1990). action readiness (Frijda, 1986), given that Frijda (1993) later pointed to Research on both dehumanization and mind perception suggests that a possibility that appraisal may cooccur with emotion, an idea shared humanness entails the perception of not only abilities to reason and to with constructionist theories of emotion (e.g., Barrett et al., 2007). exert self-control, attributes that ostensibly distinguish humans from nonhuman animals, but also abilities to experience warmth and emo- 5.3. Preliminary evidence for the motivational model of Schadenfreude tions, attributes that distinguish humans from inanimate objects, such as intelligent but insentient machines (Gray et al., 2007; Haslam, 2006). Although our motivational model of Schadenfreude has not been

7 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11 explicitly tested, the link between dehumanization and Schadenfreude helpful for restructuring the way researchers conceive of is indirectly supported by converging evidence from separate areas of Schadenfreude, opening fruitful new directions for understanding this research (Bernhardt & Singer, 2012; Zaki, 2014). Research on in- intriguing and important emotion. dividual differences in the tendency to dehumanize suggests thatin- Here, we point to two potential directions for future research on dividuals with marked narcissistic and psychopathic personality traits Schadenfreude inspired by our model. First, future research should try tend to dehumanize others (Gray, Jenkins, Heberlein, & Wegner, 2011; to delineate the developmental trajectory of each subform of Locke, 2009), so are individuals with low agreeableness, diminished Schadenfreude, ideally by examining the affective and motivational empathy, and high intergroup aversion and aggression (Cikara et al., components of closely related developmental phenomena, including 2011; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). These individual differences di- social evaluation, inequity aversion, and social preferences/group af- mensions have been shown to also correlate with Schadenfreude in si- filiation. To determine the developmental trajectories of rivalry and milar patterns as they correlate with dispositional dehumanization justice Schadenfreude, researchers should examine how the develop- (Greenier, 2017; James et al., 2014; Porter et al., 2014). ment of advantageous and disadvantageous inequity aversion relates to Situational variables contributing to Schadenfreude also overlap developmental changes in Schadenfreude either during competition with those contributing to dehumanization. Koval, Laham, Haslam, (rivalry Schadenfreude; e.g., Steinbeis & Singer, 2013) or following a Bastian, and Whelan (2012) found that individuals tend to perceive moral transgression (justice Schadenfreude; e.g., Schulz et al., 2013). As ingroup flaws as part of human nature (HN) more so than do outgroup for aggression Schadenfreude, researchers should further examine in- flaws, an effect enhanced when ingroup identity was threatened. These fants’ affective responses during their social evaluation of antisocial findings are broadly consistent with the findings of Leach et al. (2003), puppets harming dissimilar others (e.g., Hamlin et al., 2013). who showed that the threat of ingroup inferiority elicited Schaden- Second, instead of relying solely on vignettes, future research freude in intergroup contexts (for a review, see Ouwerkerk & van Dijk, should develop self-report measures (e.g., using a Likert-type scale 2014). In fact, research on intergroup interactions provides perhaps the format) of Schadenfreude to better capture its myriad manifestations best evidence for linking empathy, Schadenfreude, and dehumaniza- across diverse situations. Although vignette-based measures have tion. Research has shown that intergroup interactions not only are the proven useful in social psychology, they are marked by a number of basis for attenuated empathy (see Zaki, 2014), but also Schadenfreude limitations (Hughes & Huby, 2004), which might contribute to a frag- (Cikara et al., 2011; Cikara & Fiske, 2013; Leach et al., 2003), and mented portrait of Schadenfreude held by insular subfields and com- dehumanization (Bain, Park, Kwok, & Haslam, 2009; Goff, Eberhardt, peting research programs. A self-report measure would further allow Williams, & Jackson, 2008; Leyens et al., 2003; Vaes & Paladino, 2010; researchers to better understand how each subform differentially re- Viki et al., 2006). That said, it would be surprising if dehumanization lates to external criteria. Driven by the motivational model, we predict did not play a role in Schadenfreude in intergroup contexts. Another that Schadenfreude would display a hierarchical structure (best cap- situational variable that elicits both dehumanization and Schaden- tured by a second-order measurement model) comprising three inter- freude entails moral transgression or perceived unfairness. Research has related first-order factors corresponding to the three subforms of shown that individuals not only derive pleasure from punishing norm Schadenfreude (i.e., aggression, rivalry, and justice) and a second-order violators who treated them unfairly (e.g., Singer et al., 2006), but also factor (i.e., dispositional dehumanization), which accounts for their process their faces in an atypical manner, a process referred to as intercorrelations. We predict that dispositional dehumanization would “perceptual dehumanization” (Fincher & Tetlock, 2016). correlate positively with the Dark Tetrad of personality traits— psy- In sum, the dispositional and situational variables that contribute to chopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and sadism—and negatively dehumanization and Schadenfreude substantially overlap, providing with agreeableness. In addition, we predict that each subform of converging evidence for a link between dehumanization and Schadenfreude would relate differentially to external criteria: (a) ag- Schadenfreude, although the mechanism by which dehumanization gression Schadenfreude would positively correlate with the fearless influences Schadenfreude awaits further investigation. Nevertheless, we dominance factor of psychopathy whereas the other two subforms showed that by integrating evidence from related but often independent would not; (b) rivalry and aggression but not justice Schadenfreude literature, the proposed motivational model of Schadenfreude extends would correlate positively with the impulsive-antisociality and cold- prior theoretical work. This account provides a mechanism for ex- heartedness factors of psychopathy (Eisenbarth, Lilienfeld, & Yarkoni, plaining how competing motives contribute to Schadenfreude and 2015); (c) rivalry Schadenfreude would correlate positively with dis- highlights the central role that dehumanization would play in these positional envy and negatively with self-esteem, whereas aggression processes. and justice Schadenfreude would not; (d) justice Schadenfreude, but not the other two subforms, would correlate positively with just world 6. Conclusions and future directions belief. In closing, our tripartite motivational model possesses heuristic Schadenfreude is a prevalent yet still poorly understood emotion value in that it offers fruitful directions for both deconstructing and that arises across many situations in interpersonal and intergroup in- reconstructing Schadenfreude, an intriguing but poorly understood teractions. People have often attempted to characterize, explain, and emotion. The deconstruction allows future research to examine the po- evaluate the moral value of Schadenfreude based on their personal tential differences among putative subtypes of Schadenfreude, in- encounters with and recollections of Schadenfreude. This approach, cluding their differing developmental roots and personality correlates. however, often fails to capture the rich, multifaceted nature of this The reconstruction provides an integrated account of Schadenfreude by emotion. Philosophers and social psychologists have long recognized unifying the three proposed lower-order subforms in terms of the the multiple facets of Schadenfreude, but they are confronted with shared higher-order mental process of dehumanization. We encourage challenges to elucidate how the multiple facets of Schadenfreude take researchers to subject our theoretical model to rigorous tests so that shape and how they are interrelated. In this review, we addressed the they can be either falsified or corroborated, ideally with the aimof first challenge by proposing a novel, tripartite, taxonomy of bringing this provisional model more closely in line with psychological Schadenfreude based on the developmental, clinical, and personality reality. With a deeper understanding of Schadenfreude, psychologists literature, and addressed the second challenge by extending the tax- can contribute to the debate regarding its moral nature by providing onomy to a motivational model of Schadenfreude, highlighting the role insights into the diverse motives and forces that enable individuals to dehumanization potentially plays in eliciting Schadenfreude across di- disengage moral self-sanctions from experiencing Schadenfreude and verse situations. We hope that this novel theoretical perspective, al- other socially undesirable emotions (Bandura, 1999). In this regard, a though offered provisionally given the limited literature, can prove richer appreciation of Schadenfreude may provide a valuable window

8 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11 into the diverse origins of the darker side of humanity. Eisenbarth, H., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Using a genetic algorithm to ab- breviate the psychopathic personality inventory–revised (PPI-R). Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000032. Declaration of interest statement Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involve- 2909.101.1.91. Feather, N. T. (1989). Attitudes towards the high achiever: The fall of the tall poppy. ment in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as Australian Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 239–267. honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; Feather, N. T. (2008). Effects of observer's own status on reactions to a high achiever's membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other failure: Deservingness, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy. Australian Journal equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), of Psychology, 60(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530701458068. Feather, N. T. (2012). Tall poppies, deservingness and schadenfreude. The Psychologist, or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, 25(6), 434–437. affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials Feather, N. T., & Nairn, K. (2005). Resentment, envy, schadenfreude, and sympathy: discussed in this manuscript. Effects of own and other's deserved or undeserved status. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530500048672. Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy: References Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 953–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 014616720202800708. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental dis- th Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. orders (5 ed.). (Arlington, VA: Author). Nature, 454(7208), 1079–1083. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07155. Amirazodi, F., & Amirazodi, M. (2011). Personality traits and self-esteem. Procedia - Social Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140. and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 713–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.296. https://doi.org/10.1038/415137a. Aristotle (350 BEC/1941). In R. McKeon (ed.), The basic works of Aristotle. New York, Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. NY: Random House. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Bain, P., Park, J., Kwok, C., & Haslam, N. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and h0041593. human nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms of subtle dehumanization. Group Fincher, K. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (2016). Perceptual dehumanization of faces is activated by Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/ norm violations and facilitates norm enforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 1368430209340415. General, 145(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000132. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/ Frijda, N. H. (1993). Appraisal and beyond: The issue of cognitive determinants of s15327957pspr0303_3. emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 7, 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018. Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58373–58403. https://doi.org/10.1146/ year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216. https://doi. annurev.psych.58.110405.085709. org/10.1111/spc3.12018. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1992). Pleasure in other's misfortune. Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M. J., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Notyethuman: Quarterly, 41, 41–61. Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Bernhardt, B. C., & Singer, T. (2012). The neural basis of empathy. Annual Review of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 292–306. https://doi.org/10. Neuroscience, 35, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150536. 1037/0022-3514.94.2.292. Blair, R. J. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy Gray, H., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition, 315(5812), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475 619-619. 14(4), 698–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004. Gray, K., Jenkins, A. C., Heberlein, A. S., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Distortions of mind Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K., Corbit, J., Callaghan, T. C., Barry, O., Bowie, A., ... Warneken, perception in psychopathology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the F. (2015). The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies. Nature, 528(7581), 258–261. United States of America, 108(2), 477–479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15703. 1015493108. Brigham, N. L., Kelso, K. A., Jackson, M. A., & Smith, R. H. (1997). The roles of invidious Greenier, K. D. (2017). The relationship between personality and schadenfreude in hy- comparisons and deservingness in sympathy and Schadenfreude. Basic and Applied pothetical versus live situations. Psychological Reports, 121(3), 445–458. https://doi. Social Psychology, 19(3), 363–380. org/10.1177/0033294117745562. Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. (2014). Evolution of responses to (un)fairness. Science, Greitemeyer, T. (2015). Everyday sadism predicts violent video game preferences. 346(6207), 1251776. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251776. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confirmation of everyday 2014.10.049. sadism. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2201–2209. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The im- 0956797613490749. portance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Shopler, & C. Insko (Eds.). Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. Hamlin, J. K., Mahajan, N., Liberman, Z., & Wynn, K. (2013). Not like me = bad: Infants 2014.01.016. prefer those who harm dissimilar others. Psychological Science, 24(4), 589–594. Chabrol, H., van Leeuwen, N., Rodgers, R., & Séjourné, N. (2009). Contributions of https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457785. psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic personality traits to juvenile Hamlin, J. K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(7), 734–739. https://doi.org/ Cognitive Development, 26(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.09.001. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.020. Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Chambliss, C., Cattai, A., Benton, P., Elghawy, A., Fan, M., Thompson, K., et al. (2012). Nature, 450(7169), 557–559. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06288. Freudenfreude and Schadenfreude Test (FAST) scores of depressed and non-de- Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P., & Mahajan, N. (2011). How infants and toddlers react pressed undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 111(1), 115–116. https://doi.org/10. to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 2466/02.07.21.PR0.111.4.115-116. of America, 108(50), 19931–19936. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110306108. Cheng, Y., Hung, A. Y., & Decety, J. (2012). Dissociation between affective sharing and Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Dislike and envy as antecedents of pleasure at another's emotion understanding in juvenile psychopaths. Development and Psychopathology, misfortune. Motivation and Emotion, 26(4), 257–277. 24(2), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941200020X. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Cikara, M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4. neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22(3), Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397667. Review of Psychology, 65(1), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych- Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Their pain, our pleasure: Stereotype content and 010213-115045. schadenfreude. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1299, 52–59. https://doi. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. org/10.1111/nyas.12179. Heilbrun, A. B. (1982). Cognitive models of criminal violence based upon intelligence and Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Simulating murder: The psychopathy levels. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(4), 546–557. aversion to harmful action. Emotion, 12(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025071. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.50.4.546. de Quervain, D. J., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A., Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., ... Ziker, J. et al. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305(5688), (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767–1770. 1254–1258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100735. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127333. Decety, J., Chen, C., Harenski, C., & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). An fmri study of affective per- Hepper, E. G., Hart, C. M., & Sedikides, C. (2014). Moving narcissus: Can narcissists be spective taking in individuals with psychopathy: Imagining another in pain does not empathic? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(9), 1079–1091. https://doi. evoke empathy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 489. https://doi.org/10.3389/ org/10.1177/0146167214535812. fnhum.2013.00489. Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36–51. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04. Insko, C. A., Pinkley, R. L., Hoyle, R. H., Dalton, B., Hong, G., Slim, R. M., ... Thibaut, J. 008. (1987). Individual versus group discontinuity: The role of intergroup contact. Journal

9 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11

of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(3), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022- Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional re- 1031(87)90035-7. jections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Izard, C. E. (2007). Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and a new paradigm. 68(3), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0100. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(3), 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- Porter, S., Bhanwer, A., Woodworth, M., & Black, P. J. (2014). Soldiers of misfortune: An 6916.2007.00044.x. examination of the Dark Triad and the experience of schadenfreude. Personality and James, S., Kavanagh, P. S., Jonason, P. K., Chonody, J. M., & Scrutton, H. E. (2014). The Individual Differences, 67, 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.014. Dark Triad, schadenfreude, and sensational interests: Dark personalities, dark emo- Portmann, J. (2000). When bad things happen to other people. London: Routledge. tions, and dark behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 211–216. https:// Powell, C. A. J., & Smith, R. H. (2013). Schadenfreude caused by the exposure of hy- doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.020. pocrisy in others. Self and Identity, 12(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/ James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9(34), 188–205. 15298868.2012.687013. Jensen, K. (2012). Who cares? Other regarding concerns—decisions with feeling. In P. Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Hammerstein, & J. R. Stevens (Eds.). Evolution and the mechanisms of decision making Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/ (pp. 299–318). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. S0140525X02000018. Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Seibert, L. A. (2011). Unprovoked aggression: Effects of Aronson. psychopathic traits and sadism. Journal of Personality, 79(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/ Koval, P., Laham, S. M., Haslam, N., Bastian, B., & Whelan, J. A. (2012). Our flaws are 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00691.x. more human than yours:Ingroup bias in humanizing negative characteristics. Reniers, R. L., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Vollm, B. A. (2011). The QCAE: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/ A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 0146167211423777. 93(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484. Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of Robbins, E., & Rochat, P. (2011). Emerging signs of strong reciprocity in human onto- Personality, 80(5), 1415–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00767.x. geny. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 353. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00353. Lange, J., Weidman, A. C., & Crusius, J. (2018). The painful duality of envy: Evidence for Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2001). Personality an integrative theory and a meta-analysis on the relation of envy and schadenfreude. correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(4), 463–482. https:// Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 572–598. https://doi.org/10. doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324. 1037/pspi0000118. Rochat, P., Dias, M. D. G., Guo, L., Broesch, T., Passos-Ferreira, C., Winning, A., et al. Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2008). “A vengefulness of the impotent”: The pain of in-group (2009). Fairness in distributive justice by 3- and 5-year-olds across seven cultures. inferiority and schadenfreude toward successful out-groups. Journal of Personality and Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 40(3), 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Social Psychology, 95(6), 1383–1396. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012629. 0022022109332844. Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2003). Malicious pleasure: Rothbart, M. K. (1973). Laughter in young children. Psychological Bulletin, 80(3), Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034846. Psychology, 84(5), 932–943. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.932. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. In M. J. Lerner (Ed.). The belief in a just Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1. world: A fundamental delusion (pp. 9–30). Boston, MA: Springer US. 145. Leyens, J.-P., Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Dovidio John, F., Fiske Susan, T., Gaunt, R., ... Schadenfreude. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Retrieved July 28, Vaes, J. (2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism the 2002 Tajfel 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schadenfreude. lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 703–717. https://doi.org/10. Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component 1002/ejsp.170. process model. Cognition & Emotion, 23(7), 1307–1351. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just 02699930902928969. world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world Schopenhauer, A. (1892). The essays of Arthur schopenhauer. scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(11), 1171–1178. https://doi.org/10. Schulz, K., Rudolph, A., Tscharaktschiew, N., & Rudolph, U. (2013). Daniel has fallen into 1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L. a muddy puddle - schadenfreude or sympathy? British Journal of Developmental Locke, K. D. (2009). Aggression, narcissism, self-esteem, and the attribution of desirable Psychology, 31(4), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12013. and humanizing traits to self versus others. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), Schumpe, B. M., & Lafrenière, M.-A. K. (2016). Malicious joy: Sadism moderates the re- 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.003. lationship between schadenfreude and the severity of others' misfortune. Personality Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review. Cognition & and Individual Differences, 94, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.005. Emotion, 23(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802204677. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy: A McNamee, M. (2003). Schadenfreude in sport: Envy, justice, and self-esteem. Journal of double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal the Philosophy of Sport, 30(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2003. gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132, 617–627. https://doi.org/ 9714556. 10.1093/brain/awn279. Meffert, H., Gazzola, V., den Boer, J. A., Bartels, A. A. J., & Keysers, C. (2013). Reduced Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Ahronberg-Kirschenbaum, D., & Bauminger-Zviely, N. (2014). spontaneous but relatively normal deliberate vicarious representations in psycho- There is no joy like malicious joy: Schadenfreude in young children. PLoS One, 9(7), pathy. Brain, 136(8), 2550–2562. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt190. e100233. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100233. Meier, B. P., & Hinsz, V. B. (2004). A comparison of human aggression committed by Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1954/1961). groups and individuals: An interindividual–intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers' cave experiment. Norman, OK: Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003. University of Oklahoma Press. 11.002. Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Wynn, K. (2014). Anti-equality: Social comparison in young Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality con- children. Cognition, 130(2), 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10. ceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/ 008. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00492.x. Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Nachman, S. R. (1986). Discomfiting laughter: “Schadenfreude” among melanesians. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, Journal of Anthropological Research, 42(1), 53–67. 439(7075), 466–469. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04271. Nell, V. (2006). Cruelty's rewards: The gratifications of perpetrators and spectators. Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(3), 211–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46. S0140525X06009058. Smith, R. H., Powell, C. A. J., Combs, D. J. Y., & Schurtz, D. R. (2009). Exploring the when Nietzsche, F. (1887/1908). Human, all too human. A book fo free spirits. (A. Harvey, and why of schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 530–546. Trans.). Chicago, IL: Charles H. Kerr & Company. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00181.x. Nobes, G., Panagiotaki, G., & Pawson, C. (2009). The influence of negligence, intention, Smith, R. H., Thielke, S. M., & Powell, C. A. J. (2014). Empirical challenges to under- and outcome on children's moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, standing the role of envy in schadenfreude. In J. W. Ouwerkerk, & W. W. van Dijk 104(4), 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.08.001. (Eds.). Schadenfreude: Understanding pleasure at the misfortune of others (pp. 91–109). Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 46(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x. Smith, R. H., Turner, T. J., Garonzik, R., Leach, C. W., Urch-Druskat, V., & Weston, C. M. Ouwerkerk, J. W., & van Dijk, W. W. (2014). Intergroup rivalry and schadenfreude. In J. (1996). Envy and schadenfreude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), W. Ouwerkerk, & W. W. van Dijk (Eds.). Schadenfreude: Understanding pleasure at the 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296222005. misfortune of others (pp. 186–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steinbeis, N., & Singer, T. (2013). The effects of social comparison on social emotions and Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of behavior during childhood: The ontogeny of envy and schadenfreude predicts de- psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. velopmental changes in equity-related decisions. Journal of Experimental Child Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Psychology, 115(1), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.11.009. s0954579409000492. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, 33, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245. Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00505-6. intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https:// Pietraszkiewicz, A. (2013). Schadenfreude and just world belief. Australian Journal of doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202. Psychology, 65(3), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12020. Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When Pietraszkiewicz, A., & Chambliss, C. (2015). The link between depression and schaden- your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and scha- freude: Further evidence. Psychological Reports, 117(1), 181–187. https://doi.org/10. denfreude. Science, 323(5916), 937–939. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165604. 2466/02.PR0.117c11z3. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology,

10 S. Wang et al. New Ideas in Psychology 52 (2019) 1–11

46(1), 35–57. self-evaluation threat on schadenfreude. Cognition & Emotion, 25(2), 360–368. Vaes, J., & Paladino, M. P. (2010). The uniquely human content of stereotypes. Group https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.487365. Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/ van Dijk, W. W., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Wesseling, Y. M. 1368430209347331. (2011). Self-esteem, self-affirmation, and schadenfreude. Emotion, 11(6), 1445–1449. van de Ven, N., Hoogland, C. E., Smith, R. H., van Dijk, W. W., Breugelmans, S. M., & https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026331. Zeelenberg, M. (2015). When envy leads to schadenfreude. Cognition & Emotion, Viki, G. T., Winchester, L., Titshall, L., Chisango, T., Pina, A., & Russell, R. (2006). Beyond 29(6), 1007–1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.961903. secondary emotions: The infrahumanization of outgroups using human–related and van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: The ex- animal–related words. Social Cognition, 24(6), 753–775. https://doi.org/10.1521/ periences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9(3), 419–429. https://doi.org/10. soco.2006.24.6.753. 1037/a0015669. Wang, S., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Rochat, P. (2015). The uncanny valley: Existence and ex- van Dijk, W. W., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (2014). Schadenfreude: Understanding pleasure at the planations. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/ misfortune of others. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. gpr0000056. van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Goslinga, S., Nieweg, M., & Gallucci, M. (2006). When Watts, A. L., Waldman, I. D., Smith, S. F., Poore, H. E., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). The people fall from grace: Reconsidering the role of envy in schadenfreude. Emotion, nature and correlates of the dark triad: The answers depend on the questions. Journal 6(1), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.156. of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 951–968. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000296. van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Smith, R. H., & Cikara, M. (2015). The role of self- Wispe, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, evaluation and envy in schadenfreude. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 314–321. 247–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1111600. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.50.2.314. van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Wesseling, Y. M., & van Koningsbruggen, G. M. Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1608–1647. (2011). Towards understanding pleasure at the misfortunes of others: The impact of https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037679.

11